Talk:Don Siegelman
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] NPOV?
Did Siegelman's campaign staff write this? This article has some serious NPOV problems. I don't have time to do any rewrites myself, but I would look at the following:
1) The 2002 election "scandal" is only being told here from Siegelman's point of view. It's been a while, so I can't remember it exactly, but it seems like most people thought Riley rightfully won the election. I think something mentioning the other side of the story is needed.
2) A large part of lottery opposition was a feeling that the income from the lottery wouldn't support the programs that were to be funded by the lottery, resulting in the threat of a tax increase to cover the difference (and Alabamians HATE tax increases, as Riley found out). There were a lot of people simply opposed to the lottery for economic reasons; they weren't all "religiously motivated."
3) Siegelman did accomplish a lot as governor, but if you say "Siegelman" to the average Alabamian, they think of the lottery initiative (which is a positive thing if you're pro-Siegelman, negative if you're against him), or his legal indictments. For better or for worse, he's really not remembered first and foremost for education and economy; that's a tag applied more often to Riley. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.180.19.84 (talk • contribs) May 23, 2006
- Regarding the 2002 election, the same wording had been used on the Bob Riley (Alabama) article, which I had to rewrite yesterday. I think I've toned down the opinionated tone, but I have not changed the facts as they were stated. If these facts are in error, please let me know and/or point to a good reference. I moved that section further down and I'll go back in re-read for conjecture. Thanks for the heads up. --Dystopos 03:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Thanks. By the way, the Riley article prompted a brief edit skirmish and resulted in the creation of a new article, Alabama gubernatorial election, 2002, which you might want to look at. --Dystopos 14:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
I did a rough clean-up of the article's citation formats, indents, and so on today. The NPOV problem still remains to an extent; other than adding a quote from the NYT, I didn't change any of the substance of the article. -- LisaSmall T/C 14:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV and the Canary issue
I want to raise an issue with the section on Leura Garrett Canary. She may have had to recuse herself from the case due to the conflict of interest, but you make it seem as if she was part of a grand conspiracy, which poses a problem with the NPOV rule as I read it. First off, I don't think she received "widespread criticism" about her conflict of interest, and calling the Business Council of Alabama a Riley ally seems problematic as well. It might be best to say that BCA endorsed him. And finally, the sentence "The case went to trial in early May 2006 with Canary's subordinates prosecuting it." is unnecessary other than to make it seem like Canary had it out for Siegelman. I don't know if you are an avid fan of Siegelman, but toning that paragraph down would make the article more balanced and not pose a NPOV problem.--Bamanative 18:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Karl Rove involvement . . .
Re: 2005 Indictments, 2006 Convictions section. . .The Associated Press [1] reports "Jill Simpson, once a campaign worker for Republican Bob Riley, said in a sworn statement last month that Rove may have played a role in the investigation."
citation (copy and paste if needed)
<ref>{{citenews | first=Bob | last=Johnson | coauthors= | title=Lawyer Links Rove to Ala. Investigation |date=June 6, 2007 | publisher=KLBJ 590AM - Emmis Austin Radio Broadcasting Company, Lp. | url=http://590klbj.com/news/article.aspx?id=1145539 | work=Associated Press | pages= | accessdate =June 7, 2007 }}</ref>
R. Baley 10:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Time has a new article
on Siegelman that can be found here [2]. Someone should probably incorporate some of this information into the article. Remember 14:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] An Unresolved Point re Personal Life
How did Siegelman, who was a long-term karate student and presumably thus in good health, manage to avoid being drafted and sent to Vietnam? The Vietnam War was the biggest war of this person's lifetime, and almost 3 million boys his age were sent to fight it. Avoiding the draft was an obsession with people of that generation. In any event, this issue must be addressed, in a person his age, in order to have a real biographical sketch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.148.23 (talk) 03:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- The same way that everyone born on February 24 between 1944 and 1950 did--their number (235) was never called. There's no issue here to address, period. Samer (talk) 20:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Things from 60 Minutes that should get in the article:
- "Star witness" Nick Bailey as cornerstone of case, but he was subsequently convicted of extortion and given 10 years, cooperated with prosecutors to lighten own sentence, over 70 interviews with prosecution but notes not shared with defense, check he testified he saw was actually written days later.
- 52 state Attorneys General calling the case into question, specific testimony from Grant Woods, R-AZ (1991-1999)
- Jill Simpson makes pretty unequivocal testimony
Transcript and video here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/21/60minutes/main3859830.shtml
-Pete (talk) 17:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Inappropriate text
WP is not a site for promoting one's own work, and, as a result, the original formatting and wording is not anything approaching encyclopedic in tone. Moreover, regardless of the validity of the claims, much of what is written here is irrelevant to the topic at hand--namely, Don Siegelman himself. That said, if you wish to include relevant portions of this information, you may do so. Samer (talk) 15:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
THE ABOVE IS UNTRUE "RAW STORY DID NOT BREAK THIS STORY" http://www.insider-magazine.com broke the story in-depth in July 2007 and later a follow-up story was done in October 2007 when Jill Simpson testified to the House Judiciary Committee staffers behind closed doors. http://www.insider-magazine.com/DeadUSattysOrig.html - again in December 2007 http://www.insider-magazine.com/Contract_On_America.html.
Insider-Magazine.com and Emerald Coast Insider Magazine publisher John Caylor has been working on the U.S. Attorney firings and justice corruption story since 2003. In September 2006 Caylor moved his residence near Karl Rove's Rosemary Beach home to gain a tactical advantage on reporting this story. In July 2007 Caylor made a formal documented complaint to the Federal Bureau of Investigation supervisor at Montgomery, Alabama concerning Karl Rove's reported involvement in Siegelman's prosecution uncovered by Caylor in March 2007 as a result of Caylor's investigative work. The FBI has an open investigation of the above referenced complaint by Insider-Magazine.com and Caylor.
Insider-Magazine.com can produce a tape recording from the Federal Bureau of Investigation validating this fact. Attempts by Raw Story to hijack our hard undercover investigative work will not be tolerated. - Please see the Criminal investigative reports in our http://www.insider-magazine.com/DeadUSattysOrig.html story documenting our involvement since 2003 in these matters. Mr. Caylor's association with former republican party attorney Dana Jill Simpson came about because Simpson was hired to investigate Caylor by Republican Party Officials and these facts will be validated at a later date in federal court.
[edit] Rove's Response
Karl Rove has released a point-by-point rebuttal of the charges that he was involved in the situation, or that Dana Jill Simpson was working for him. It's directed at Dan Abrams of MSNBC, but the rebuttal is significant here.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmY4YTBmMDg3NDljYWY0NTViNmMxNzgwOGUzZTk1NGI=
DesScorp (talk) 20:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)